Many of these individual and entities are in the sports and entertainment industries, including professional soccer player, Rafael Marquez Alvarez (Rafa Marquez), Mexican singer Julio Cesar Alvarez Montelongo (Julion Alvarez), Mexican Soccer Club Club Deportivo Morumbi and the Grand Casino Guadalajara.

As of the issuance date of these designations, no U.S. persons, companies, nor any individuals in the US, are allowed to conduct transactions with these individuals or entities. Penalties under the Kingpin Act can run as high as $10MM per violation, with individual violators subject to imprisonment for up to 30 years. Even civil penalties for inadvertent violations can run over $1M per violation. It is worth noting that OFAC violations are based on strict liability.

If you would like more information, a better understanding or need guidance regarding compliance with these regulations, contact Jill M. Williamson, a Rimon Law Partner based in Washington, DC. Of course you can always contact me, Joe Rosenbaum, or any of the lawyers at Rimon with whom you regularly work.

On Thursday, April 6, 2017, I had the privilege of participating and presenting, together with a panel of distinguished lawyers, on the subject of the legal issues, implications, challenges and opportunities resulting from the use of celebrities in social media to provide endorsements for products and services. My partner, John Isaza, who heads the Records and Information Governance practice at Rimon Law, chaired the session sponsored by the Cyberlaw Committee. The program was held in New Orleans as part of the ABA Business Law Section Spring Meeting and the other presenters and panelists were Adam Nadelhaft, a senior litigation associate in the Washington office of Winston & Strawn LLP and Valerie Surgenor, a partner in the Glasgow, Scotland, law firm MacRoberts LLP.

In addition to my presentation on the use of celebrities in social media for endorsements, marketing and promotional purposes, Adam reviewed the law relating to paid endorsements and ‘buying buzz’ on social media, whilst Valerie focused on the similarities and differences in approach taken by UK and EU law.

The Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act of 1992 prohibits most states from authorizing sports betting (the law grandfathered a few states, such as Nevada) and New Jersey has been fighting to convince the Federal government to allow the State to legalize and license sports betting. The latest attempt to circumvent the Act was the repeal of New Jersey’s own sports betting prohibitions at racetracks and casinos. That effort was derailed by a series of court decisions, culminating in a 9-3 en banc decision of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which then led to the State of New Jersey petitioning the Supreme Court of the United States.

Clearly, as States look to generate other sources of tax revenue, many view this as an opportunity to increase revenues and regulate an activity that has long been associated with organized crime. Indeed, the American Gaming Association estimated well over $4 billion in bets were placed on the Super Bowl last Sunday, virtually all of it, illegally. President Trump has consistently said he is in favor of eliminating or reducing legislation and regulation that restricts what States may or may not do and that encumber businesses needlessly beyond necessary Federal oversight. This may well fit right into that category, although there have been no comments as yet from the Administration.

Former Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions, just confirmed last night as Attorney General of the United States, has voiced opposition to any expansion of online gambling in the past, although when questioned during Senate hearings, did indicate he was willing to take another look at how and to what extent online gaming is being enforced by the Federal government. There is also the possibility that in deciding to allow sports betting and an expansion of online gaming generally, the Federal government may choose to adopt some form of federally regulated or licensed betting and gambling scheme. While the path ahead is far from certain and opposition remains, some things do seem clear: attitudes are changing, the present administration is not averse to controversial new ideas, is favorably disposed to the elimination of any unnecessary Federal regulation that stands in the way of creating jobs and stimulating the economy and, notably, is likely to welcome finding an opportunity to enable States to find ways to increase tax revenue – and taxing so-called ‘sin’ industries may not be such an objectionable idea.

Stay tuned and, of course, if you have any questions, want further information or need help, don’t hesitate to contact me, Joe Rosenbaum, or any of the attorneys you regularly work with at Rimon.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC), under its new Chairman Ajit Pai, removed from its list of items for consideration, a proposal originally put forth by prior Chairman Tom Wheeler that would have allowed consumers to access pay-TV content on third-party devices. Previous Chairman Wheeler’s original proposal took an “apps” based approach, but also included a licensing scheme that would require implementation of a standardized license for placing apps on such platforms or devices.

Critics, however, noted this particular proposal would actually have the opposite effect and more restrictively limit the choices available to consumers. The original proposal also put the FCC in the position of acting as supervisory authority in order to ensure, in each case, that such a license wouldn’t harm competition. Critics immediately raised concerns over the need for such intrusion by the FCC at all (some raised questions regarding the authority of the FCC to require or supervise such a licensing scheme), with many preferring to simply get rid of restrictions and limitations on access devices altogether.

While the FCC has removed the proposal from its list of items being considered for a vote, it remains on the Commission’s circulation list. Thus, the FCC’s action removes the proposal from immediate consideration, but doesn’t close the file officially – something over which industry groups remain concerned. Their concerns continue to relate to the uncertainty of having a proposal still open for consideration, which, if resurrected, could pose problems for many in the industry, including distributors and content creators whose existing contracts might be in violation of such a new FCC requirement or policy. Stay tuned.

For more than 80 years, Section 310(b) of the Communications Act of 1934 has been interpreted as prohibiting direct foreign ownership of more than 20% and indirect ownership of 25% or more of US radio and television broadcast stations. Effective January 31, 2017, this will change as the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) has removed longstanding prohibitions against these limitations on foreign ownership, although it has preserved the right, on a case-by-case basis, to block a foreign acquisition of a broadcast license in excess of 25% (e.g., for reasons of national security).

Foreign entities, for quite some time, have already been permitted to acquire control over non-broadcast licenses (e.g., nationwide cell carrier T-Mobile is majority owned by Deutsche Telekom). But the FCC has steadfastly enforced its longstanding foreign ownership control policies over broadcast station licenses. Most famously, Rupert Murdoch had to become a U.S. citizen before being able to acquire control over what we know today as Fox Broadcasting.

Changes adopted to the rules of the FCC will enable approval of up to and including 100% aggregate foreign beneficial ownership (voting and/or equity) by foreign investors in the controlling U.S. parent of a broadcast licensee, subject to certain conditions. The revised rules, which newly define and in certain respects create different rules for “named” and “un-named” investors, they will allow a named foreign investor that acquires less than 100% to increase its controlling interest to 100% at some time in the future. If a named foreign investor acquires a “noncontrolling” interest, that investor will now be permitted to increase its voting and/or equity interest up to and including a “noncontrolling” interest of 49.99% in the future, if it chooses to do so.

Although the FCC’s expansive “public interest standard” in approving sales and investments in broadcast licenses, coupled with input from other Executive government agencies, could significantly delay or block investments from some countries, the strong support of this initiative by the remaining Republican members of the FCC would tend to indicate the FCC will be disposed to allow most transactions to proceed to closing. Indeed, the FCC has already signaled its willingness to do so, by approving just such a foreign ownership acquisition in a recent declaratory ruling issued even before the new rules take effect, ending a decades long back-and-forth haggling over Mexican ownership of Univision.

For more information regarding the new FCC rules or assistance in handling the regulatory and transactional aspects of such an investment, contact the author, Stephen Díaz Gavin, or Phil Quatrini or Sandy Sterrett, all partners at Rimon, P.C.

Welcome to the new Legal Bytes blog. As many of you know, my Legal Bytes blog has been dormant after my recent transition to Rimon, P.C.. Getting set up, ensuring smooth transitions for clients, enhancing the look and feel of the blog has taken a longer than I hoped, but hopefully the bugs are out of the system and it’s now up to me to try my best to make the new Legal Bytes blog worth the wait. For newcomers, buckle your seatbelts – this isn’t your ordinary legal blog!

What happened? Why does it matter? How does or could it affect you? Inquiring minds always want to know and in the process of trying to answer those questions for you, I will always try to illuminate and perhaps also entertain you. In the coming months I’ll entice you into regular readership, enlighten you with timely content, addict you with my trivia contests, entice you to keep in touch and most of all, try to help you better understand how developments in the law and regulation may affect you.

I intend to continue Light Bytes, with interesting quotes and sayings that pique my interest and hopefully yours. Of course, there was never a question about my trivia contests. After all, who else but a lawyer could call it “Useless But Compelling Facts”? We have once again made arrangements with the International Law Office (ILO) based in London. I am privileged to have been re-appointed as Editor and exclusive content coordinator for their U.S. Media, Marketing, Sports & Entertainment Newsletter. Although there will be content you will see exclusively in the ILO newsletter, you may also see many of our Legal Bytes articles re-purposed and ‘internationalized’ in collaboration with much appreciated work of the ILO editorial staff. I am again excited to be working with such a valued organization and truly great people – shout out to Carolyn Boyle, my Editorial contact.

Want to know what’s on my radar for the year ahead – I won’t spoil all the surprises, drone on about drones, nor will I keep my head in the clouds or the crowds. I am fascinated by the legal implications of the Internet with Things (yes, I replaced ‘Of’ with “With”). I’m also concerned about cybersecurity and data protection. I am intrigued by the growing robustness of augmented reality, which means I don’t have to walk around with those funny goggles or a digital scuba mask to experience the virtual world. Mobile technology is transforming our world – making digital content, e-commerce and communication available to billions of people that had previously never seen a television, had a bank account or used a telephone. I would be remiss not to mention social media – maturing and increasingly commercialized – further blurring the distinctions between information, entertainment and advertising; between me as an individual and an employee; between me at play and at work; and between my trademarks and my reputation; and between my insatiable desire to tell the world and my seemingly paradoxical concern over my privacy!

It is a brave new world – so much to know and so much to keep up with.

I first heard about the paradox of illumination from Lee Loevinger, an extraordinary gentleman I was privileged to know professionally. Lee was a multi-faceted, multi-talented, thought-provoking lawyer whose sage advice and stimulating ideas continue to resonate with those honored to have known him, and everyone else wise enough to read his work and the words he left behind.

In a nutshell, the paradox of illumination is extraordinarily complex, but simple to describe. Much like Albert Einstein who, when asked about his theory of relativity and the notion that time is not constant, described it in personal terms: if a man is at dinner for 10 minutes with a beautiful woman, it seems like a fleeting instant; but sit on a burning hot stove for 10 minutes and it seems like an eternity :).

The paradox of illumination can similarly be described on a personal level. Sit in completely dark room. Really. Completely dark. What can you see? Nothing. You know little about your surroundings and can only sense your own body – in fact, you don’t even know how far your surroundings extend beyond your immediate sensations.

Now light a match. The circle of illumination allows you to see a little of what is around you – but the perimeter and beyond are still dark. Now light a candle. The circle of what you can see illuminated by the light is larger than before, but the size of the perimeter beyond which you cannot see is also a lot larger than before. The larger the light, the larger the area of illumination, but larger by far is the perimeter beyond which we know nothing.

The more we can see and the more we know and understand about the world around us, the larger the amount becomes that we don’t know. In other words, as the circle of our knowledge grows, so does the amount of knowledge we cannot see and don’t know. The paradox of illumination is the paradox of knowledge. Perhaps that is why Michelangelo, when he was more than 87 years old, still said, “Ancora Imparo” (I am still learning).

This is the time of year when many of you are celebrating holidays; spending time with family, friends and loved ones; bidding farewell to 2015; and looking forward to the New Year – 2016. A time when many of us pause to reflect on what has happened in the past year and wonder what the new year will bring. There are people who have touched us and some with whom we’ve gotten closer; some we have missed and many with whom we resolve to try and be better in the new year; and perhaps a few we might like to forget. We pause to remember those who are no longer with us and appreciate that by remembering them, we keep their spirit – all we have learned from them and all they have meant to us – alive. As 2015 comes to an end, we reflect on friendships and relationships, events and experiences. Many will use the opportunity to thank those who have helped us in tough times and those with whom we cherish sharing the good times.

For me it has always been a time to resolve to keep doing the good things I’ve done and to be better about trying to do those things I should have done. This time of year gives me an excuse to say thank you and express appreciation to everyone who has enriched my life. If you are reading this, you are part of my audience – part of the fabric of my professional life and, like the threads of that fabric, you have helped me weave the patterns and textures you read in these digital pages and the thoughts and sensitivities that become imprinted in my mind. I am grateful for your readership and in some cases, your friendship. I am always appreciative when you take a moment to read and perhaps gain some insight, while also being a little entertained.

So let me take this the opportunity to wish each of you, your families, friends, loved ones and yes, even an enemy or two, a beautiful and joyous holiday season and a healthy, happy new year, filled with wonder and magic, health and joy, challenge and opportunity, and prosperity and success. I especially want to thank a few people at Rimon like Kaitlin Southron, Lois Thomson and Rebecca Blaw who make this blog happen. These are the people you don’t see, but I do! They make Legal Bytes come alive. They are always amazing, consistently awesome and unbelievable under pressure. There are insufficient words to express my gratitude and appreciation – especially when they get my email that says “can we please post this ASAP.” Thank you. You make it look easy, you make me look good. I could not do this without you!

Everyone knows there is competition, hype and controversy over nominations and awards at each year’s contest run by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences. The competition culminates in an annual show broadcast around the globe and endearingly referred to as the “Academy Awards,” or simply the “Oscars” – referring to the golden statuette given out during the broadcast and evidencing the winners. In recent years, the hosts of the Oscar broadcasts – some controversial and others not – have changed almost as often as the tidy-whities displayed by Michael Keaton in this year’s Best Picture winner Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance). But do you know the legal controversy surrounding the Oscars?

Here are the facts:

Ellen DeGeneres wanted to take a “selfie” together with some of the most famous people in Hollywood, and by “tweeting” the photo, it become the most re-tweeted Twitter post ever. The camera used for the selfie was a Samsung Galaxy Note 3. Samsung is one of the advertisers with the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, and Samsung gave it to Ellen for promotional purposes at the event. We don’t know of any agreement between Samsung and either the Academy or Ellen DeGeneres regarding the device or any photos or messages using the Galaxy Note 3. We do know Ellen did not actually take the picture. To get everyone she wanted to fit into the picture, Ellen passed the camera to Bradley Cooper, who had longer arms. He got everyone in the frame and pressed the shutter.

Here is the photo and tweet that resulted, and which immediately went viral when posted on Twitter.

Stay Connected

Light Bytes

Topics

Useless But Compelling Facts

Name any two words in the English language that have all the vowels (don’t consider ‘y’ a vowel for this purpose) in correct alphabetical order. For extra credit, name the only officially recognized English word that has all five of those vowels in reverse alphabetical order.